From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:31:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Documentation/git-commit.txt
Message-ID: <20061209043123.GB18204@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vy7pik51b.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 03:20:32AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I think I went overboard and ended up not using the word
> "index", but eradicating the word was not my intention.

Yeah, "index" is a perfectly OK word, and it's already used all over the
documentation.

I think what you want to avoid is a huge digression into blobs, trees,
SHA1's, and the structure of the index file when you could just slip it
in there without a lot of fanfare, maybe like:

> +When recoring your own work, the contents of modified files in
> +your working tree are staged with gitlink:git-add[1].
		       ^^^
...are temporarily stored to a staging area called the "index" with...

(though maybe that's a little cumbersome).

Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with the verb "stage", but I
think it may be a little less commonly used (in this meaning) than the
term "staging area", so people might catch on faster if we started with
"staging area".